create_lists_by_id_like

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it does not explain the effect of liking a list, idempotency implications, authentication requirements, or what happens on repeated calls. Since the description carries only minimal additional transparency, it falls short.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and to the point: a one-line purpose, the exact endpoint, and a compact Args section. It front-loads the core action and avoids filler. The Args guidance is a little terse but still earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple like endpoint with an open-world body and an output schema available, the description gives just enough direction: the id parameter is explained, and the body's open nature is addressed by directing to a GET or schema reference. However, it does not mention required body fields, authentication, or the relationship with sibling like/unlike endpoints, leaving some gaps for proper invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that id is 'The id/slug of the resource' and instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the body fields. This provides more meaning than the bare schema, though it does not enumerate body fields themselves, leaving significant discovery work to the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Like a list' with the endpoint POST /lists/{id}/like. It is specific and unambiguous about what action is performed. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling create_users_by_id_lists_by_list_id_like, which also likes a list but in a different context, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_lists_by_id_like or create_users_by_id_lists_by_list_id_like. The only extra instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the body fields, which is parameter discovery, not usage context. No conditions or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.